This is an interesting variant of 'if you think his music is so bad, why don't you make your own?'.
The reason he can't is because that would make him a nutty man. The point of Wikipedia is that it combines the efforts of hundreds of nutty men to generate credibility.
It's not false information. The system has become more open to fraud, and very few people who own these cards has been told about it.
Isn't it totally disingenuous to act like nothing's changed, when in fact owning these cards has become more risky? Isn't it even more of a dick move to ask that all information regarding it be censored?
1. Barclays is a big bank (or banking syndicate, or whatever). 2. There aren't massive differences between big banks as far as the extent of chip and pin services or the ability to roll out updates to them are concerned.
->
What the hell are they (except Barclays) doing? They've got enough money to pay themselves big fat bonuses in a depression - how come they haven't got enough to repair a widely-used system in order to protect their customers from fraud? It's almost as if they don't give a fuck!
The important thing is, a shitload of people are risking a shitload of money over this without so much as an email from the bank telling them it's even happening.
That's important to note. However, they're taking their fucking time fixing it (it's been a year since the first notification) - only Barclays' system has been fixed so far - so they aren't really justified in making such a request.
1. For every man on the street who knows what an IP address is (not many), very few would know what Wireshark is.
2. I certainly wasn't bothered to download LOIC and analyse the packets it sent, but its certainly interesting to note it does give away the Tx IP address.
3. It does give impartial background on the tool that I trust more than what Encyclopediadramatica says about it.
What basis do you have for saying JPEG compression introduces only visually insignificant artifacts? As far as I know, JPEG disposes of smallest details first on a block-by-block basis, without any discrimination on a human visual level. This obviously produces some visible artifacts, since a certain number of people are disturbed by it.
Lossy pictures are for transmission. This is why pictures on the internet meant for 'looking at' are PNGs rather than BMPs.
The people who care would probably be those who benefit from a significant reduction in server load, and the viewers who don't have to view a website with JPEG colour smudges in them, to some degree.
Eh? The pixels you refer to are only slightly darker, not black.
.
I'm very impressed with WebP overall. The images are sharper and have better colour tones, and obviously lack those awful JPEG colour smudges. The resolutions are unimportant - the important thing is that WebP produces the images at the same size at similar or superior quality. They are also significantly smaller.
I'd just like this opportunity to say "fuck the shitty Slashdot comments system". Try and guess which of the myriad reasons is causing me to complain this time!
True - and exactly the same thing could lead to varying degrees of trouble at work, due to automated systems or passers-by. Why hasn't Google made a statement to this effect, though? 'Trying to not offend people like pussies' was definitely the first impression I got.
Slashdot Mirror
One iPad coming up.
You are correct (in fact, perhaps more correct than you think):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
And you've hit upon the reason TFA is useless.
Ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha ha FUCKING HA.
Make sure to give all Republican party members one of those ChromeOS laptops without the capslock key in future.
This is an interesting variant of 'if you think his music is so bad, why don't you make your own?'.
The reason he can't is because that would make him a nutty man. The point of Wikipedia is that it combines the efforts of hundreds of nutty men to generate credibility.
It's not false information. The system has become more open to fraud, and very few people who own these cards has been told about it.
Isn't it totally disingenuous to act like nothing's changed, when in fact owning these cards has become more risky? Isn't it even more of a dick move to ask that all information regarding it be censored?
Well, I admit my assumptions are:
1. Barclays is a big bank (or banking syndicate, or whatever).
2. There aren't massive differences between big banks as far as the extent of chip and pin services or the ability to roll out updates to them are concerned.
->
What the hell are they (except Barclays) doing? They've got enough money to pay themselves big fat bonuses in a depression - how come they haven't got enough to repair a widely-used system in order to protect their customers from fraud? It's almost as if they don't give a fuck!
The important thing is, a shitload of people are risking a shitload of money over this without so much as an email from the bank telling them it's even happening.
That's important to note. However, they're taking their fucking time fixing it (it's been a year since the first notification) - only Barclays' system has been fixed so far - so they aren't really justified in making such a request.
1. For every man on the street who knows what an IP address is (not many), very few would know what Wireshark is.
2. I certainly wasn't bothered to download LOIC and analyse the packets it sent, but its certainly interesting to note it does give away the Tx IP address.
3. It does give impartial background on the tool that I trust more than what Encyclopediadramatica says about it.
On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.
He already did:
"I don't see sufficient value in that product"
Brilliant. I literally can't tell whether you're joking or not.
Virtual sticky notes on my desktop, and pinned tabs in my Chrome window.
I'd basically forget my whole life if I lost these things.
You forgot the last step where you realise it's intentional.
What basis do you have for saying JPEG compression introduces only visually insignificant artifacts? As far as I know, JPEG disposes of smallest details first on a block-by-block basis, without any discrimination on a human visual level. This obviously produces some visible artifacts, since a certain number of people are disturbed by it.
Lossy pictures are for transmission. This is why pictures on the internet meant for 'looking at' are PNGs rather than BMPs.
The people who care would probably be those who benefit from a significant reduction in server load, and the viewers who don't have to view a website with JPEG colour smudges in them, to some degree.
Subtle minutiae across the entire image makes a difference greater than the sum of its parts.
.
I'm very impressed with WebP overall. The images are sharper and have better colour tones, and obviously lack those awful JPEG colour smudges. The resolutions are unimportant - the important thing is that WebP produces the images at the same size at similar or superior quality. They are also significantly smaller.
I'd just like this opportunity to say "fuck the shitty Slashdot comments system". Try and guess which of the myriad reasons is causing me to complain this time!
True - and exactly the same thing could lead to varying degrees of trouble at work, due to automated systems or passers-by. Why hasn't Google made a statement to this effect, though? 'Trying to not offend people like pussies' was definitely the first impression I got.
This is the answer to the majority of pants-shitting that occurs over similar matters on Slashdot.
Pretty much my thoughts. Additionally, the author of the article is a long-winded, uppity nerd.
'Dancefloor killers'?
...to the A8. Unimportant detail there.
The main problem, unfortunately, is that ulama in the middle east will use footage of this to incite hatred against westerners.
I think we used to more often. I could see myself using it in a conversation - I haven't for some time, though, nor heard anyone else use it.